AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 131
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Good questions that are interesting to consider, building a logical chain. Personally I don't succeed, I am stuck in the paradox of infinite division and the paradox about the largest body in the Universe: that is, I make a mistake somewhere. But, one thing I know for sure: the world is not quantised (ether and so on) - it is impossible, it is only necessary to ask an etherman what is between etherinks, his fifth point starts to burn. Space is infinite and continuous in all directions, and the universe has always existed. These are infallible judgements and on the basis of them it is possible to build something further.
Here is how to build something further from all this, hz. The initial idea is as follows: if with each new telescope we find celestial bodies of bigger and bigger size, then in infinite space there will be bodies of bigger and bigger size, and therefore striving to infinity.
On the other hand, on the macro level (judging by photos of the visible Universe) all celestial bodies have the same size (conventionally) - it is a carpet of galaxies and stars, and there is not a single star, there is not a single galaxy, which would stand out by its enormous size. That is, the thought goes to the fact that after a certain size (huge, some Arcturus or Betelgeuse, or whatever the biggest body is) further increase of size starts to slow down and the next star or body will be bigger, but not so much as the difference between the previous ones. That is, if we start travelling through the Universe, eventually we will come to the fact that each next giant body will be bigger than the previous record first by millions of km, then by hundreds of thousands of km, then by thousands of km/second. km, then by thousands of km/hundreds of km/km and so on downwards.
As in MT5 optimiser) At first the profit is huge, then it starts to "refine" and add a little bit with each new adjustment.
The same is true in the microcosm: there are known particles. It's accepted that they can't be split. Then something splits and a huge amount of energy is released. Here it is clear that this is the effect of gravity, because something will not appear from nothing. That is, gravity is the most "killing" force in the Universe and all the effects (nuclear explosion, radiation, radio, wi-fi, matter, coca-cola) are all based on it.
It seems to me that fission below is possible. And beyond that there will be smaller and smaller particles. But, if there is a boundary of any kind in the universe, it is the fission boundary. There must be some minimal object that will oscillate. And, apparently, here to flow into a field.
That is, the field then flows into a particle, then flows into matter.
The answer will sound trite - based on empirically derived data.
Arrays of data of interaction with the environment come from all sensory organs and are transformed by the brain into meaningful information, and then, as experience is accumulated, are generalised by the intellect into the concept of "matter". Commonplace.
That's the thing
...
Arrays of data are transformed by the brain... And the way the brain works on that data is what gives rise to "concepts" of "matter", "energies", "energies"... "energies", "energies". "information as a product of neural activity". "big bangs" and so on.
But if these arrays were not "transformed" by the brain, but used by it to extract initial information about their sources, then you would not be telling me about "matter" now... and Ivan Butko would not be hinting at my fascination with postmodernism
....
Many years ago, when the computer on my desk had only 64 kB of memory... and it had no batteries inside yet (this point turned out to be very important), I made (just like that,... without any purpose) a program that displays the current time digitally on the monitor (well, just like a big desktop digital clock)...
I ran it,... looked at it,... it works... and - turned off the computer... and - turned off the computer.
And here I was "hooked": "Here, I think, just now there was a clock in front of me..... "I saw it, and it was doing its job, ticking, ticking. "I could even touch it with my finger." But, with a flick of a switch, and, in the same volume of space where the clock had just been, there was no trace of it.".....
WHAT WAS THAT? Was that clock the very "matter" of which you speak...? Because, in terms of the amount of matter that made up that computer, with the clock on.... and without it, when it was switched off, it was exactly the same (!)....
That's when two seemingly incompatible facts came together for me: firstly, that only absolute emptiness has the ability to exist... without the need to appear once for that.... All other physical objects are irresistibly caught in the inevitability that, in order for them to exist - they have to appear from somewhere at some point...
And the second is the clock,...which just now,...right before my eyes,... "appeared out of nothing"...and just as "disappeared into nothing".
That's how something that doesn't physically exist in nature "exists" to our minds. Just as the clock, in that computer, was generated merely by changing the values of the parameters of the space, which was then "occupied by the computer"... so all your "data sets" carry to the brain information about the values of the parameters of the space at specific points in it. And don't confuse this with the existence of some mystical matter in these points, the essence and reasons for the appearance of which you can't explain yourself later.
Stop torturing the animals, you monsters.)
That's the thing ...
Data arrays are transformed by the brain... And the way the brain works on that data is what gives rise to "concepts" of unknown "matter"... "energies", "energies". "information as a product of neural activity". "big bangs" and so on.
But if these arrays were not "transformed" by the brain, but used by it to extract initial information about their sources, then you would not be telling me about "matter" now... and Ivan Butko would not hint at my fascination with postmodernism ....
Many years ago, when the computer on my desk had only 64 kB of memory... and it had no batteries inside yet (this point turned out to be very important), I made (just like that,... without any purpose) a program that displays the current time digitally on the monitor (well, just like a big desktop digital clock)...
I ran it,... looked at it,... it works... and - turned off the computer... and - switched off the computer.
And here I was "hooked": "Here, I think, just now there was a clock in front of me..... "I saw it, and it was doing its job, ticking, ticking. "I could even touch it with my finger." But, with the flick of a switch, and, in the same volume of space where the clock had just been, there was not the slightest trace of it.".....
WHAT WAS THAT? Was that clock the very "matter" of which you speak...? Because, in terms of the amount of matter that made up that computer, with the clock on.... and without it, when switched off, the computer was exactly the same (!)....
That's when two seemingly incompatible facts came together for me: firstly, that only absolute emptiness has the ability to exist... without the need to appear once for that.... All other physical objects are insurmountably bogged down by the inevitability that, in order for them to exist - they have to appear from somewhere at some point...
And the second - a clock,... which just now,... right before my eyes,... "appeared out of nothing"... and just as "disappeared into nowhere".
That's how something that doesn't physically exist in nature "exists" to our minds. Just as the clock, in that computer, was generated merely by changing the values of the parameters of the space, which was then "occupied by the computer"... so all your "data sets" carry to the brain information about the values of the parameters of the space at specific points in it. And don't confuse this with the existence of some mystical matter in these points, the essence and reasons for the appearance of which you can't explain yourself later.
Interesting comparison with the optimiser :) that is, the size of the particle asymptotically decreases, just as the size of the macro body increases. But, due to infinity of space but not infinity of field density due to superposition of fields, the field goes to the particle by some formula that does not allow to have field density above its maximum at some point. Just as one is not allowed to have an infinite mass of a body, due to the violation of the surrounding field density in infinite space. Then it explains periodic birth and annihilation of particles in vacuum, because of fluctuations of the field, or rather change of its density in each point.
You have a strong mathematical apparatus, maybe you will come to an answer).
Classy logical problem.
But no, some guys in the thread don't want such arguments(The amount of matter does not change, and the amount of information on it can tend to infinity.
UPD
That's the thing ...
Data arrays are transformed by the brain... And it's HOW the brain works on that data that gives rise to "concepts" about unknown "matter",... "energies", "energies". "information as a product of nervous activity". "big bangs" and so on.
But if these arrays were not "transformed" by the brain, but used by it to extract initial information about their sources, then you would not be telling me about "matter" now... and Ivan Butko would not hint at my fascination with postmodernism ....
Many years ago, when the computer on my desk had only 64 kB of memory... and it had no batteries inside yet (this point turned out to be very important), I made (just like that,... without any purpose) a program that displays the current time digitally on the monitor (well, just like a big desktop digital clock)...
I ran it,... looked at it,... it works... and - turned off the computer... and - switched off the computer.
And here I was "hooked": "Here, I think, just now there was a clock in front of me..... "I saw it, it was doing its job faithfully, ticking,..." "jingling, I could even touch it with my finger." But, with the flick of a switch, and, in the same volume of space where the clock had just been, there was not the slightest trace of it.".....
WHAT WAS THAT? Was that clock the very "matter" of which you speak...? Because, in terms of the amount of matter that made up that computer, with the clock on.... and without it, when switched off, the computer was exactly the same (!)....
That's when two seemingly incompatible facts came together for me: firstly, that only absolute emptiness has the ability to exist... without the need to appear once for that.... All other physical objects are insurmountably bogged down by the inevitability that, in order for them to exist - they have to appear from somewhere at some point...
And the second - a clock,... which just now,... right before my eyes,... "appeared out of nothing"... and just as "disappeared into nowhere".
That's how something that doesn't physically exist in nature "exists" to our minds. Just as the clock, in that computer, was generated merely by changing the values of the parameters of the space, which was then "occupied by the computer"... so all your "data sets" carry to the brain information about the values of the parameters of the space at specific points in it. And don't confuse this with the existence of some mystical matter in these points, the essence and reasons for the appearance of which you can't explain yourself later.
Here, you should. You narrate well, neatly, with feeling and arrangement.
You see, absolute emptiness cannot exist because of the nature of the field. You are using wi-fi, which is field continuous matter. And if matter is continuous, then it is... continuous(!))))))))))) Well don't kid yourself, at any point in space there is gravity and field matter. Matter may be absent, space may be rarefied, but it is always filled. Hence, there are no absolute voids.
Areas of maximum rarefaction only.
Or can you divide a wi-fi wave into two parts?
Show me what a stump looks like :)
There seems to be blood up to the sockets.
You have a strong mathematical apparatus, maybe you'll come up with an answer.)
Classy logical problem.
But no, some guys in the thread don't want that kind of argument(The amount of matter does not change, but the amount of information on it can tend to infinity.
that's right.
so far we are talking about storage media, but later we will move to bodies in general. so what is the difference between a blank and a written hard disc, between a blank and a written magnetic tape?
the question is not directly to you, but to all participants of the thread who would like to reflect on the topic "information", especially to the topic starter))) the topic of information is directly related to the topic, so it is not an off-topic.
by the way, physicists studiously avoid the concept of "shape" and the only section of physics that somehow studies shape is geometrical optics, although there shape has nothing to do with the question posed.
That's the thing ...
Data arrays are transformed by the brain... And the way the brain works on that data is what gives rise to "concepts" of unknown "matter"... "energies", "energies". "information as a product of neural activity". "big bangs" and so on.
But if these arrays were not "transformed" by the brain, but used by it to extract initial information about their sources, then you would not be telling me about "matter" now... and Ivan Butko would not hint at my fascination with postmodernism ....
Many years ago, when the computer on my desk had only 64 kB of memory... and it had no batteries inside yet (this point turned out to be very important), I made (just like that,... without any purpose) a program that displays the current time digitally on the monitor (well, just like a big desktop digital clock)...
I ran it,... looked at it,... it works... and - turned off the computer... and - switched off the computer.
And here I was "hooked": "Here, I think, just now there was a clock in front of me..... "I saw it, it was doing its job faithfully, ticking,..." "jingling, I could even touch it with my finger." But, with the flick of a switch, and, in the same volume of space where the clock had just been, there was not the slightest trace of it.".....
WHAT WAS THAT? Was that clock the very "matter" of which you speak...? Because, in terms of the amount of matter that made up that computer, with the clock on.... and without it, when switched off, the computer was exactly the same (!)....
That's when two seemingly incompatible facts came together for me: firstly, that only absolute emptiness has the ability to exist... without the need to appear once for that.... All other physical objects are insurmountably bogged down by the inevitability that, in order for them to exist - they have to appear from somewhere at some point...
And the second - a clock,... which just now,... right before my eyes,... "appeared out of nothing"... and just as "disappeared into nowhere".
That's how something that doesn't physically exist in nature "exists" to our minds. Just as the clock, in that computer, was generated merely by changing the values of the parameters of the space, which was then "occupied by the computer"... so all your "data sets" carry to the brain information about the values of the parameters of the space at specific points in it. And don't confuse this with the existence of some mystical matter in these points, the essence and reasons for the appearance of which you can't explain yourself later.